Altruism, required for heroics?

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

From that point of view, yes, they are both selfish acts. I don't know if removing the anticipated future guilt is enough of a motivation, though, or even a consideration. I don't believe I would feel guilty for not acting on behalf of strangers; I have my own family (read: selfish interests) to look out for. I would certainly act if the risk was low enough (but that either makes me practical or cowardly, certainly not heroic).

One premise in Atlas Shrugged is that selfishness, although damned by society, is necessary for achievement.

I recently finished reding Atlas Shrugged and I have to admit that it played a factor in me asking this question and has me questioning myself )Am I doing a Hank Reardon or should I John Galt?).

I set teh fire fighter example to the side since there are too many "but what ifs" that go with those stories and turn the attntion back on LV.

Are those that contribute to the "Greater Good" of the LV community by developing and sharing CR code heroes?

Simialry those that post LV-Wikis etc?

Does the answer change if the code or articles are latter found to be faulty or lacking ?

Still doing some soul searching, and greatly appreciate your comments and thoughts.

Ben

[jcarmody]

Are those that contribute to the "Greater Good" of the LV community by developing and sharing CR code heroes?

I haven't yet grasped what 'hero" means, but I do feel that the word is overused. Anyway, I'd suggest that there is great reward received by those that develop CR code, LV Wikis and posts on LAVA. I couldn't begin to pay for the code review, tips and suggestions that I've recieved here. Adding three projects to the CR was a small price to pay (not that it was required) compared to the benefit I've received by participating in this community. I don't belong among advanced architects, but I can follow some of the advanced topics discussed here and it seems that everyone is benefiting from the discussions.

I almost wrote that I don't see anything selfless in these forums, but I really do. When a LabVIEW beginner asks a simple question and receives an answer from an advanced LabVIEW professional, I see something selfless and beautiful. Perhaps your reward is the good feeling you get after doing it, but I think it's more that you're very nice people.

Prov. 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

It applies to LabVIEW, too.

[Daklu]

(Lots of thinking out loud here... read this as ideas I'm floating, not a viewpoint I'm asserting is correct.)

I don't know if removing the anticipated future guilt is enough of a motivation, though, or even a consideration.

Not conciously, no. Most of the process takes place on the subconcious level. When faced with a decision I am aware of at least some of the factors in my pleasure/pain equation, but most of them don't enter into my thinking.

I don't believe I would feel guilty for not acting on behalf of strangers; I have my own family (read: selfish interests) to look out for.

Understandable. From my hedonist point of view since you don't associate any pain (guilt) from not acting, taking action doesn't reduce the pain. The coefficient of pain for the guilt factor in your pleasure/pain equation is zero.

I would certainly act if the risk was low enough

Nobody acts unless or until they subjectively evaluate the risk to be low enough. Taking action is a physical manifestation that--for that person--the reward outweighs the risk. The reward isn't necessarily a monetary reward or public recognition, though it may be a factor for some people. These are pleasure increasing rewards. Reducing negative feelings such as guilt--pain reduction--is also a reward. When you remove all the extraneous stuff, the reward is simply a higher score on one's personal pleasure/pain scale. Higher than what? Higher than what it was before? No, higher than the pleasure/pain score of any of the other choices available.

(but that either makes me practical or cowardly, certainly not heroic).

I disagree. Since people only act when they subjectively decide the "risk" is low enough, that in and of itself is not enough to determine if an action is cowardly or heroic.

Cowardly and heroic are subjective labels we apply to actions we believe we wouldn't have taken had we been in the same situation. That's why people celebrated as heros often don't think of themselves as heros or say they're just "doing their job." To them, their action is a natural extension of who they are. There's nothing exceptional about it. When enough people believe an action is heroic, society calls it heroic. At the core, heros are those whose personal pleasure/pain equation causes them to take action when most of the rest of us wouldn't. We conciously admire their bravery and lack of self-concern, but what we're really admiring is their pleasure/pain equation.

Are those that contribute to the "Greater Good" of the LV community by developing and sharing CR code heroes?

I would say no. Heroism, as commonly used, seems to have some necessary conditions that are not met by contributing to the Labvieiw community. Significant risk of physical injury is one of them. While I'm sure carpal tunnel is quite painful, it doesn't quite meet the society's standard.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

(Lots of thinking out loud here... read this as ideas I'm floating, not a viewpoint I'm asserting is correct.)

...

Nobody acts unless or until they subjectively evaluate the risk to be low enough. Taking action is a physical manifestation that--for that person--the reward outweighs the risk. The reward isn't necessarily a monetary reward or public recognition, though it may be a factor for some people. These are pleasure increasing rewards. Reducing negative feelings such as guilt--pain reduction--is also a reward. When you remove all the extraneous stuff, the reward is simply a higher score on one's personal pleasure/pain scale. Higher than what? Higher than what it was before? No, higher than the pleasure/pain score of any of the other choices available.

...

I am thinking outloud myself and thank you for listening in.

Discalimer:

I do not concider myself a hero.

I have to question the staement about Nobody acts. I was sitting in a park eat lunch (babe watching) when I witnesed a purse snatching. About six blocks latter I found myself asking the question "Hmmm, I wonder if this is a good idea?" Others caught him and tackled him to the ground and I just went back to work.

I realize that we can ague either side of my motivation but i tell the story now because it was an example where time did not permit being thoughtful and action was taken and only latter concidered.

Megae-dittos on the proverbs quote!

Ben

[Daklu]

I have to question the staement about Nobody acts... it was an example where time did not permit being thoughtful and action was taken and only latter concidered.

"Thought" isn't necessarily part of the process. It *can* be, but it doesn't *have* to be.

Incidentally, I discovered there's a name for an idea that is very similar to what I'm describing, though I think I take a slightly different approach to what the article describes. It's called motivational hedonism (MH.) Also, I don't think MH can be used to predict an individuals behavior given an arbitrary set of circumstances. In principle it could, but I can't even get a firm handle on my own pleasure/pain equation, much less quantify anyone else's. I suspect MH is better applied to analyzing why an action is taken after it has been done. Finally, I believe MH is correct in that it is consistent and can be used to explain any action, but I don't think it is necessarily the only correct explanation. It's just one way of viewing the reasons why an action is taken.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

"Thought" isn't necessarily part of the process. It *can* be, but it doesn't *have* to be.

Incidentally, I discovered there's a name for an idea that is very similar to what I'm describing, though I think I take a slightly different approach to what the article describes. It's called motivational hedonism (MH.) Also, I don't think MH can be used to predict an individuals behavior given an arbitrary set of circumstances. In principle it could, but I can't even get a firm handle on my own pleasure/pain equation, much less quantify anyone else's. I suspect MH is better applied to analyzing why an action is taken after it has been done. Finally, I believe MH is correct in that it is consistent and can be used to explain any action, but I don't think it is necessarily the only correct explanation. It's just one way of viewing the reasons why an action is taken.

On an purely intelectual level, I could follow that line of reasoning right up until I think of my Father and my brother. I would have to toss a lot of memories to get MH to fit into my brain without conflict.

I am firming up on a couple of ideas from reading and thinking and those ideas are not off much from of the stuff I read coming from Plato.

Its seems we accept that there is a difference between what is percieved to be a hero what actually is a hero. Looking to the points in MH, there are two things we can look for, the motivation of the act and the results of the act. Since few of us can "search hearts" we have no true insight into a person's motivation (for some of us, we may not recognize what our motivations actaully are) and are limited to evaluate observable actions and results.

I don't have a point to make, so I'll go find some real work to do now.

Ben

[jcarmody]

I read this on my daily news feed: "altruism is praxeologically impossible." - from here and here

These are two essays written by an Austrian economist. The second link above considers a situation where a grenade is thrown in front of a patrol and five responses are considered. Here's his conclusion regarding the response that has someone throwing his body on the grenade to protect his comrades:

Case 3, however, might be a little more problematic. In fact, I figure many folks would immediately suggest that our hero was acting with altruism. If he was a "believer" in the rhetoric which suggests that giving one’s life for a cause is a worthy exploit, then of course he would be altruistic, right? No. Anyone who believes that the trade of his life is appropriate in exchange for some higher goal is, by definition, valuing that higher goal more than his life! This is Misesian splendor revealed. He acts, on purpose, to achieve more of what he likes, in exchange for less of what he does not. The trade is in his favor or he would not have taken the action. No other logical assessment is possible, unless he takes the action accidentally, or randomly, or unless we cannot predict that people follow praxeology with all purposeful actions. I agree with Mises.

I enjoy economics and have studied the Austrian Value Theory but I didn't approach this thread from this angle.

[Daklu]

He acts, on purpose, to achieve more of what he likes, in exchange for less of what he does not.

I wish I could explain things as well as these guys... that quote pretty much sums up what I was trying to say where "what he likes" = pleasure and "what he does not" = pain.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

He acts, on purpose, to achieve more of what he likes, in exchange for less of what he does not.

So basically altruisme is a nothing, and should be deleted from our vocabulary, because it names something that according to this definition can't exist. Or we may have been looking at only one specific definition of altruisme so far, and are really missing the point altogether .

[Yair]

...The second link above considers a situation where a grenade is thrown in front of a patrol and five responses are considered...

Ignoring heroics and the whole discussion, there seems to be at least one flaw here. In the beginning of the article, he says:

For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll define altruism in two ways; both fully descriptive of the general consensus of what altruism would be if it existed.

Altruism

: Selfless concern for the welfare of others; the commission of a selfless act in relation to another.

Or:

Altruism

: The act of willingly, purposefully, exchanging one item of value (say, your own life) for another item of ostensibly less or at best equal value (say, the life of someone else).

His analysis of the soldier's action is based on the second definition, but he does not seem to account for the first definition, i.e. that the soldier jumped on the grenade to save the others because he was concerned for their welfare, despite the certain fatal damage to himself.

[Daklu]

So basically altruisme is a nothing, and should be deleted from our vocabulary, because it names something that according to this definition can't exist.

I claim to have invented a three-sided square and I call it a "squangle." Does the fact that a squangle--by definition--can't exist (in cartesian space) mean the term shouldn't be used? No, because it conveys an idea; the concept of a three-side square.

Or we may have been looking at only one specific definition of altruisme so far, and are really missing the point altogether.

I agree with you here. "Altruism" means something, but it doesn't mean "acting against one's self interest," which I think is the implied definition the author uses. He says,

"Case 3, however, might be a little more problematic. In fact, I figure many folks would immediately suggest that our hero was acting with altruism. If he was a "believer" in the rhetoric which suggests that giving one’s life for a cause is a worthy exploit, then of course he would be altruistic, right? No. Anyone who believes that the trade of his life is appropriate in exchange for some higher goal is, by definition, valuing that higher goal more than his life!"

If we accept the author's proposition that people always choose actions that return the greatest perceived value then an "altruistic" person is simply one who values things differently than the average person. In general I would say an altruistic person places less value on personal comfort and self existence than most people.

[Edit - Rats, Yair beat me to it.]

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

I claim to have invented a three-sided square and I call it a "squangle." Does the fact that a squangle--by definition--can't exist (in cartesian space) mean the term shouldn't be used? No, because it conveys an idea; the concept of a three-side square.

Exactly and you made already the specific limitation when you said "in cartesian space". If that would be all that is possible then your squangle would be indeed very useless, but we can imagine, and some can even calculate in, very uncartesian spaces, so your squangle has indeed a valid place. My statement was also more meant to provoke than to state something I believe in.

Altruisme as this guy interprets it is very specific and as Yair already pointed out he even seems to ignore one interpretation he brought up himself too. Your pleasure pain equation has a lot of merits and can explain a lot of different behaviors but it mostly ignores any of the indefinite possible reasons that some people have such an extraordinary pleasure pain equation in comparison to the big mass. There seems to be something that defines that equation and I highly doubt that it is just a random collection of brain cells .

[Daklu]

it mostly ignores any of the indefinite possible reasons that some people have such an extraordinary pleasure pain equation in comparison to the big mass.

Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Motivational hedonism only uncovers the first layer of reasons why we act the way we do. There are many more layers to go.

I do believe thinking about actions in terms of pleasure/pain has made me more empathetic and less apt to idolize or condemn others. I'm much more able to accept them as they are instead of comparing them against a standard of what we "should" do.

There seems to be something that defines that equation and I highly doubt that it is just a random collection of brain cells.

Agreed. Nature vs. nuture. That's a 40 page thread all by itself.